BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

                   Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member 

Sri G. Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),

                                                           Male Member

Monday  the  14^th  day of February, 2011

CC. No.  50 of 2010

Between:

Boda Narsaiah S/o Seshadri,

Age: 60 years, Occupation Agriculture,

R/o Ramsagar (V), Doultabad (M),

Medak District.                                                                        … Complainant

          And

1. The A.D.E. A.P. Transco,

Thukkapur, Siddipet Division.

2. The S.E.,

A.P. Transco,

Sangareddy, Dist. Medak                                                      ….Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 03.02.2011 in the presence of Sri. A. Harikrishna, Advocate for complainant and Sri Anantharao Kulkarni, Advocate for opposite parties, upon hearing  arguments, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following

O R D E R

(Per Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

                   This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to give electricity connection immediately and to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards damages.

The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

1.          The complainant is a resident of Ramsagar village, Douthabad Mandaal, Medak District. He is an agriculturist. The complainant has residential house bearing No. 1-62 in Ramsagar Village. In June 2010 the complainant applied to the opposite party No. 1 for electricity service connection to his house. The opposite party refused to receive the application. Finally on 10.06.2010 the complainant sent application form to opposite party No. 1 along with demand draft dated 10.06.2010  for Rs, 425 obtained from State Bank of Hyderabad, Gajwel in the name of D.E.E. A.P.C.P.D.C.L, Siddipet together with  four photos, through registered post acknowledgement due. The registered post was also refused by opposite party No. 1 which amounts to misusing of official powers. The complainant has been suffering from mosquito bites due to which he could contact malarial fever and typhoid. Opposite party No. 1 intentionally harassed the complainant and is therefore liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards damages. The opposite party No. 2, being the superior, is also responsible. Hence the complaint.

2.             The claim of the complainant is resisted by the opposite parties by filing a counter of Assistant Engineer, Thoguta to the following effect:

                   The complaint allegations are not true and correct. There is customer service center (C.S.E)  in Thukkapur. Consumers should submit their applications or grievances in C.S.E. Which will be registered in their online system. The complainant brought an application for a new connection with incomplete information. He was advised to submit the application at C.S.E with full information and required documents, but the complainant did not submit and is simply blaming the officials. After disconnection of service No. 3 and removal of meter equipment for non-payment of due amount, the complainant is now seeking new electricity connection to the house with a different door number.  The complainant now applied for new connection on house No. 1-62 which is adjacent to house No.1-69 (wherein Service No. 3 existed), which is under the possession of the complainant. The complainant trying to avoid payment of the amount due against service connection No. 3. The complainant may therefore be directed to pay the outstanding dues. The allegation of refusal to receive application is a messed up story. The house of the complainant bearing No. 1-69 is constructed with one roof without any portions or partition walls. The complainant and his brother Shivaiah lived in that house and service connection No. 3 is to H.No.1-69 is in the name of the complainant. His brother Shivaiah died long back. After the death, the complainant became owner of the house bearing No.1-69  and the complainant himself has been using service connection No. 3 for domestic purpose for 15 years. Neither the complainant informed the opposite parties about the death of his brother nor submitted application for change of name to transfer the service connection from the name of his brother shivaiah to his name but utilized the power supply and kept pending the C C charges amounting to Rs.10,445/- . So the service is disconnected. Even after disconnection the due amount has not been paid, so the meter equipment was also removed as per standing instructions of APCPDCL.

                   The complainant has not only kept pending the CC charges against the service connection No. 3 but also not paid CC charges pending against the following agriculture services in Ramsagar Village.

                   There is no deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Power has been supplied to him even after several reminders for payment of due amounts. The opposite parties department suffered loss due to non payment of CC charges. The claim for Rs.50,000/- is un reasonable, illogical and illegal. The notice issued to the department shows the residence of the complainant as House No. 1-62 and House No. 1-69 but it is house no. 1-62. The complaint may therefore be dismissed.

3.                In order to prove the respective contentions, the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit and marked Exs. A1 to A8 on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of the opposite party No. 1 is filed but  no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite  parties. Written arguments are not filed on either side.. Oral arguments of both parties heard. Perused the record.

4.                The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the direction for service connection and damages as prayed for?

Point:

5.               The case of the complainant is that he is owner of the residential house bearing No. 1-62 situated at Ramsagar Village, Douthabad Mandal, Medak District. According to him in June 2010  when he sought to submit an application to the opposite party No. 1 for a new electricity connection to his house, opposite party No. 1 refused to receive the application, therefore on 10.06.2010 he sent the application by registered post acknowledgement due along with DD for Rs. 425/- and four photos but the said cover was also returned with refusal endorsement, therefore this complaint is filed for a direction to opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to provide electricity connection to the house immediately and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages. The contention of the opposite parties is that it is false to allege that the application of the complainant was refused to receive by the opposite party No. 1. Their case is that the application brought by the complainant was with incomplete information therefore the complainant was advised to submit the application with full particulars in customer care center, Thukkapur. The opposite parties also denied refusal of the application of the complainant  which was sent by registered post acknowledgement due.  It is their further case that the complainant and Shivaiah are  brothers and service connection No. 3 under category I is given to House No. 1-69 which is in the name of the complainant. Shivaiah passed away long back and after the death of his brother the complainant herein became owner of the house 1-69 and has been using Sc. No. 3 for domestic purpose for the last 15 years without informing the electricity department the death of his brother Shivaiah nor applied for change of name for the service connection from Shivaiah and the amount due against the said connection is Rs. 10,445/-.

6.                     The documents marked on behalf of the complainant are Ex.A1 is bank demand draft. Ex. A2 is application form with two passport size photos. Ex.A3 is Xerox copy of house hold card. Ex.A4 is certificate issued by village sarpanch. Ex. A5 is two test report forms. Ex.A6 is empty returned registered cover. Ex.A7 is office copy of legal notice and Ex.A8 is postal registration receipt. Reference will be made only to the documents which are necessary for the disposal of this case.

7.                   At the outset we would like to say that if the opposite parties, who are public servants, refuse to receive such application certainly it amounts to deficiency in service. In the instant case the allegation of the complainant is that when he sought to submit application to opposite party No. 1 he has refused to receive, but the opposite party No. 1 denied the same and contended that the application brought by the complainant was with incomplete particulars therefore he was advised to submit the application with full particulars, in the customer service center, Thukkapur. According to the complainant Ex.A2 is the application which was sought to be submitted. It is accompanied by a demand draft for Rs. 425/- together with two passport size photos of the complainant (not four photos as stated in the complaint). A perusal of Ex.A2 shows that some of the columns are not filled up. It is a printed form addressed to Assistant Engineer/ operation. The column there under is intended to write the town where the Assistant Engineer works. It is not filled up. Door Number of the house to which the connection is sought is also not noted under clause 2. Sub Clauses (b) and (c) of clause 2 are also not filled up. Therefore these blanks in Ex.A2 add merit to the contention of the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant brought the application with incomplete particulars therefore he was advised to get the application after furnishing all the particulars. Hence the contention of the complainant that opposite party No. 1 refused to receive the application is not well founded.

8.               The next contention of the complainant is that when he sent the application through registered post under Ex. A6 the said cover was also refused to receive by opposite party No. 1. As seen from Ex. A6 it is addressed to opposite party No.1 but the post office at Thukkapur endorsed on the cover as “try/Kondapak SO” therefore Kondapak postman appears to have made an endorsement on the cover that it was sent back to Gajwel as the addressee has not received it. Opposite party No. 1 is at Thukkapur. The refusal seems to be by an officer at Kondapak. Therefore it cannot be said that opposite party No.1 has refused to receive Ex.A6 registered cover.   Ex.A6 is an empty registered envelop which is opened at one end. It is not known whether Ex.A2 was sent in that cover or something else was sent. Even if Ex.A2 was sent in it , because it is with incomplete particulars it would not have served the purpose. However the allegation of the complainant that opposite party No. 1 refused to receive the application of the complainant when it was sent through registered post is not proved.

9.                    According to the complainant he is owner of the house bearing No. 1-62 and he is not concerned with house No. 1-69 to which service connection No.3 was given by the opposite parties or with the arrears for the said service. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is, in fact both the numbers 1-62 and 1-69 are of the same house with one roof, without any partition or partitions in the house and both the brothers i.e. the complainant and Shivaiah lived together in the house jointly and after the death of Shivaiah the complainant has been using Sc. No. 3 for the past 15 years without intimating the death of Shivaiah to the opposite parties nor even applied for change of the service connection to his name from Shivaiah. The complainant’s advocate has not denied the same. However he denied the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that 1-62 and 1-69 are numbers of the same house. According to him there are 7 houses between the two houses. It appears that the learned counsel has subtracted 62 from 69 and stated that there are seven houses in between the two. As the complainant’s advocate has not denied the contention of the opposite parties’ counsel that complainant and his brother Shivaiah lived together in the same house under one roof and service connection no. 3 was given to H.No. 1-69 and after the death of shivaiah the complainant has been using the said service connection for the past 15 years, the contention that both numbers are of the same house may be correct. If a house has two entrances to two separate streets (just as east and west), it is not unbelievable that such house has two numbers. It is pertinent to note here that though the contention of the complainant is that his House number is 1-62, in the from address written on Ex.A6 cover is that his residence is House Number 1-69. This circumstance also lends support to the contention of the opposite parties that both numbers are of the same house.  

10.                 As the complainant is proved to have taken application form to opposite party No. 1 with incomplete particulars, the same could not be considered by the opposite parties; therefore the complainant is not entitled to the directions to the opposite parties to provide new electricity connection to the complainant. However it is observed that the complainant may submit a fresh application as per rules furnishing all the required particulars and documents and seek electricity connection to his house. It is also observed that the opposite parties may proceed against the complainant for recovery of the alleged arrears through process of law. If there are rules or regulations for the electricity department not to provide new connection until arrears are paid in a case of this type, the electricity department must  make the complainant understand  the same in writing, when he submits an application.

11.          In view of the discussion supra it is held that the complainant is not entitled to the directions sought for in the complaint. The point is answered against the complainant.

12.              In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

                    Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this     14^th  day of February, 2011.

         Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                             Sd/-

  PRESIDENT                       LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For the complainant:                                             For the opposite parties:

-Nil-                                                                               -Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the  complainant:                                             For the opposite parties:

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

Copy to

1. The complainant
2. The opp.parties
3. Spare copy                    Copy delivered to the Complainant/

Opp.Parties on ____________

                                                Dis.No.                 /2011, dt.